Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/07/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Didn't she give up all future rights to her photographs as a part of her financial settlement problems? Maybe she just doesn't care anymore. Tina On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Lew Schwartz <lew1716 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Bill Pearce <billcpearce at cox.net> > wrote: > > > So she is doing what painters have been doing for hundreds of years, and > > that's bad? Since when did photography have to be realistic? I thought we > > had shed those shackles years ago. > > > It's not a question of her being good or bad or whether or not we were ever > shackled (Were we?). If you follow the widely acknowledged distinction > between photograph and illustration made everywhere else in the media, > she'd be an illustrator, not a photographer. I don't think photography is > even essential to the images used to illustrate the article Jayanand > posted. A commercial artist with an airbrush and Illustrator could have > produced those without touching a camera. Using a camera this way has the > appeal of a tour de force, whoever would have thought you could/would do > that with a camera? ..... so the work becomes valued as a performance: We > admire it for the skill, effort and social engineering behind its > production as opposed to its end result. Side by side with an artist's > illustration, however, there's nothing special, imo. > > > -Lew Schwartz > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- Tina Manley http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com